An End to all 9/11 conspiracies!!

To this day, the US government has provided no evidence that Osama Bin Laden had a direct involvement in 9/11, despite stating at the time of the attacks and for weeks thereafter that they had the evidence and would be disclosing it shortly. I don't know about you, but 7 years and counting isn't "shortly".

Furthermore, there are only 4 instances in history where a plane has been vaporised in a crash, and the 4 instances are the 4 planes that attacked on 9/11. There are only 3 instances in history where a steel structured building has collapsed due to fire. Again, these are the Twin Towers and WTC building 7, all on 9/11. Now, I know there has to be a first time for everything, but for this all to happen on the same day?

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Alethia]

reply to post by Alethia


This thread is nothing but a wet dream for the poorly misinformed and misguided debunkers.

Message to you......


This will be your nightmare. This has just begun. The end you seek is your own. Truth always prevails.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)


We good men already now thaqt we are victorious. Tho I must add that I do enjoy the final death pangs from the debunkers and official conspiracy theory pushers.


Good job you good people who seek and share the truth. Understand that none of this is in vain.

We are guided by GOD, Love, Truth.

Originally posted by IvanZana
We good men already now thaqt we are victorious. Tho I must add that I do enjoy the final death pangs from the debunkers and official conspiracy theory pushers.

Come on now, it's been 7 years since 9/11, and all you *SNIP* have been able to come up with is some insane rambeling, mud slinging and name calling, not a hint of solid evidence.

We are guided by GOD, Love, Truth.

I have my own theory about that.!

Edit for civility. Read here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-5-2008 by NGC2736]

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Not directed at you personally, but Id say that a large majority of trutherz are politically motivated by their hatred of Bush/Iraq War.

And are those who tow the official line regarding 9/11 somehow immune from poltical motivations? I think not.

The only truth is that the official version of events has yet to be proven. Even if it turns out to be the truth, it still has to be proven.

reply to post by SickSoul

... not a hint of solid evidence.

It is not up to the jury, or "we the people" in this case to provide the evidence. It is up to the prosecutor to meet the burden of proof. The government has not made their case.

Originally posted by jackintheboxThe government has not made their case.

Oh they have, a long time ago, you're just not able to understand it.

reply to post by SickSoul

Oh they have, a long time ago, you're just not able to understand it.

And why would I be "not able" to understand, despite my credentials and experience?

Originally posted by jackinthebox


And are those who tow the official line regarding 9/11 somehow immune from poltical motivations? I think not.

The only truth is that the official version of events has yet to be proven. Even if it turns out to be the truth, it still has to be proven.

1- I'd say that there a few, but are in the minority by a vast margin. And speaking for myself, not at all, since I'm against the war and always vote Dem.

2- False. There are minutae that trutherz focus on because the waters may be muddy on that issue. But when one takes the totality of the evidence, there can be no doubt that Islamists flew planes into some buildings, they burned, and they fell down. Thankfully, most people recognize this truth and aren't sucked into the whole truther movement.

In short, I'd say that Skeptic Overlord himself describes the truther mindset quite accurately. In short, they're activists:

forums.randi.org...

First, you need to understand the psychology of the beast. "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're primarily comprised of activists who would otherwise be preoccupied with protests against the World Bank and other anarchy-inspired issues.

With that in mind, the activist is inherently angry and more interested in filling their ranks with 100 spittle-spewing red-faced people in black t-shirts shouting on the corner than 100 intelligent contemplative researchers delivering articulate examinations of facts.

Activists (9/11 Truthers) are more concerned with who is paying attention to them.

Pure conspiracy theorists are more concerned with who is paying attention.

So if you disagree, you're not paying attention to them... hence the anger.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
So why is it then, that a person such as myself, who saw the Towers burning with my own eyes, accepted the official story for quite some time? Is it my ego and my emotions that changed my mind in recent years, or the lack of facts and outright lies to support the official version of events?

ok, first.. humor, learn what it is, live it, love it.

secondly, its fine to question all that you know, at the same time, i see pretty much absolutely ZERO in the way of poking holes in things here. nothing concrete or repeatable or even provable.

heres my summary of what I generally see in this or almost any 9-11 conspiracy base.
CS#1: ZOMG, theres flashes on the tape, it must be explosions!!!!!!!
CS#2: The NWO wants to eat our babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm a structural engineer
CS#3: Theers moltin lava puring ut ov tha bulding, its a conspiracy, and my spell checker hates me becuase i'm jewish!!!!
Questioner#1: Um, could that just be like, flaming jet fuel or something?
CS#1, 2 & 3: ARRRGGGHH debunker, shun teh non believer, shun shun! *cries to mod*
Rationalizer: anyone who doesnt see it was a setup is an uneducated clod
Questioner#2: Um, gee, looks like a plane sure did hit that building
CS#1, 2 & 3 + Rationalizer: ARRRGGGHH debunker, shun teh non believer, shun shun! *cries to mod*

... etc...

basically, i see more exclamation points than actual content and logic.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

1- I'd say that there a few, but are in the minority by a vast margin. And speaking for myself, not at all, since I'm against the war and always vote Dem.

That much I can respect. Again, personally speaking, my leanings to the left or right on various issues really has very little impact on my opinions surrounding 9/11. If it were a Democrat in office, I would still be of the opinion that there are far too many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. In fact, the more I look for answers, the more I find a disturbing lack of them. For myself, it really has little to do with politics specifically, other than the fact that I don't trust any politician.

2- False. There are minutae that trutherz focus on because the waters may be muddy on that issue. But when one takes the totality of the evidence, there can be no doubt that Islamists flew planes into some buildings, they burned, and they fell down. Thankfully, most people recognize this truth and aren't sucked into the whole truther movement.

So often, the devil is in the details. Take the large number of murder and rape cases in this country, where people have been sent to prison and have even spent decades there, only to finally be exonerated by one critical piece of evidence that overturned the totality of the case against them.

And aside from that, we are not just talking about one singular irregulrity here with the case of 9/11. But many, in the most critical junctures of the case that the officials are presenting.

Originally posted by SickSoul
Oh they have, a long time ago, you're just not able to understand it.

The official story would not hold up in court.

There has already been lots of reasonable doubt shown.

reply to post by CoffinFeeder

ok, first.. humor, learn what it is, live it, love it.

I am not amused. And I find it disturbing that you find humor in 9/11.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

So often, the devil is in the details. Take the large number of murder and rape cases in this country, where people have been sent to prison and have even spent decades there, only to finally be exonerated by one critical piece of evidence that overturned the totality of the case against them.

And aside from that, we are not just talking about one singular irregulrity here with the case of 9/11. But many, in the most critical junctures of the case that the officials are presenting.

So, which side do we all take then?

1- there's the totality of proven evidence, and that with a few weak areas, that say that Islamists did it. Do we acquit them because of these weak areas, because it raises some doubt, however miniscule, that would not hold up in court ( Moussaoui ) ?

2- or do we scream that it was an inside job, and defend it to the death based on extremely poor evidence that has been credibly refuted? Or at the VERY LEAST falls well within the bounds of reasonable doubt that you have raised. To ignore reasonable doubt and blame Bush, etc is in effect doing exactly what you apparently abhor.

3- or maintain our heads and keep an open mind if we're uncertain, or the very least until reasonable doubt is cleared?

CoffinFeeder you have made two posts and said nothing. You obviously came to this forum for a reason, so who are you trying to convince? Truthers or yourself? Your posts appear to me to be incoherent ramblings. I enjoy and have learned things from people with opposing view points, but you have failed to add anything to this thread, except for a bad reflection on debunkers. If you want to convince people of another view point, maybe you should just stop posting, and leave that up to people who have a little more language skill.

The fact of the matter is The Administration was against and tried to block any investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Why? Tom Daschle asked this question and received a letter full of anthrax. Remember the anthrax? I guess that was Al-Queada, too. The Administration only gave in to an investigation after much public pressure. After giving in, they decided they needed to appoint the Commissioners. Just the fact they tried to make Henry Kissenger the head, should tell you something. The Administration refused to cooperate, refuse to fund them properly and decided to make up the rules of how and when they would be questioned. The CIA made every attempt to stonewall the investigation. Does this not seem odd to anyone? Does this sound like people who have nothing to hide? The 9/11 victims families state that after the Commission Report was released, it failed to address 70% of their questions. 70 f'n percent.

But you know what, why should any of us question these things. Oh yeah, it's because we're all irrational people with hurt egos. Move along nothing to see here. If you don't have question regarding 9/11, then I question your Patriotism.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder

with radioactive antimatter llamas until they collapsed under their own weight ...so thats why we're short two twin towers today.

First, RomanMarioni, you ROCK! That's an outstanding piece of prose. It couldn't have been said any better.

Now, to you, CoffinFeeder. Go ahead and make fun of 'antimatter'. Whether it fits your world or not, antimatter has been in production since twenty years.
Besides, we're not talking about antimatter bombs -- but antimatter triggered bombs. Please note the difference.

And the drive to miniaturize hydrogen bombs in pelletized form (for energy production) has been going on full force for at least thirty years.
Scientists have published papers that long ago as well, warning the world about the possible military use of advanvements in civilian fusion research findings.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Seymour Butz

1- there's the totality of proven evidence, and that with a few weak areas, that say that Islamists did it. Do we acquit them because of these weak areas, because it raises some doubt, however miniscule, that would not hold up in court ( Moussaoui ) ?

I would say that there are more than a "few weak areas." Missing fuel from Flight 93, missing video from the Penatgon, missing explanation entirely for WTC 7, etc. Then there is the fact that the investigation itself did not follow long-standing protocols, particulary in the handling of forensic evidence. Not to mention the fact that the Bush administration deliberately tried to deny any investigation whatsoever, and when they finally did allow it, made sure that it turned out to be a whitewash.

Now don't misunderstand me when I bring up the political interference here either. If it was a Clinton who did this, they would be just as much to blame, it just so happens that it was the Bush administration who not only dropped the ball, but ran interference deliberately.

On the Moussaui trial...It was a sham. We had a government with an agenda, a people who wanted revenge, and some idiot who wanted to be martyred. I won't go into detail here and derail this discussion, but if Americans were really concerned about their rights and their liberty, they should be taking a much closer look at the miscarriage of justice in this case.

Lastly, it is not enough to say "Islamists" did it, unless you are willing to fight a new crusade. You have to follow the evidence, to the individuals and their affiliations. And there we see the trail run into some reall murky areas. Even if Islamists were involved, does not exonerate co-conspirators and/or agitators.

2- or do we scream that it was an inside job, and defend it to the death based on extremely poor evidence that has been credibly refuted? Or at the VERY LEAST falls well within the bounds of reasonable doubt that you have raised. To ignore reasonable doubt and blame Bush, etc is in effect doing exactly what you apparently abhor.

I hardly think that you can credibly refute what history has taught us about the rampant corruption at the highest levels in this government.

If you are talking about specific evidence, you cannot say that ver much has been refuted at all. The burden of proof is upon the officials to make their case. If I choose to not believe the official story, it is not because I have "better" evidence, it is because they have failed to meet the burden of proof and to answer some very basic questions. That lack of evidence, compounded by the actions of this administration, lead me to the conclusion that they are complicit and therefore guilty of high crimes against the people of this nation. My question is not wether or not our own government is guilty, I only want to know how guilty, who specifically was involved, and if there were other foreign powers involved that might very well be a much more imminent threat against this nation the Muslim radicals.

3- or maintain our heads and keep an open mind if we're uncertain, or the very least until reasonable doubt is cleared?

This is obviously the most logical approach, but cannot be maintained in indefinately, especially when sowing such doubt is likely another factor in the complicity of domestic enemies. The Islamic extremists have nothing to gain from our debate here.



[edit on 5/9/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
That lack of evidence, compounded by the actions of this administration, lead me to the conclusion that they are complicit and therefore guilty of high crimes against the people of this nation. My question is not wether or not our own government is guilty, I only want to know how guilty, who specifically was involved, and if there were other foreign powers involved that might very well be a much more imminent threat against this nation the Muslim radicals.

Do you even realize what you've stated here?

Lack of evidence, in your view, means that the gov't is responsible.

This falls well short of having a reasonable doubt. Hypocrisy at it's brightest and shiniest. Congratulations.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Lack of evidence, in your view, means that the gov't is responsible.

This is correct. More accurately, complicit. Why should they withold evidence if they were not complicit in some way?

This falls well short of having a reasonable doubt. Hypocrisy at it's brightest and shiniest. Congratulations.

I fail to see any hypocrisy in what I have said. My reasonable doubt as to the official story of 9/11 is strictly based upon a lack of evidence.

That lack of evidence then raises suspisicions, knowing that the government is witholding key evidence. Compound that with historical facts, and you would logically reach the same conclusion.

Does hypocrisy really concern you, or are you the hypocrite?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Lack of evidence, in your view, means that the gov't is responsible.

This is correct. More accurately, complicit. Why should they withold evidence if they were not complicit in some way?

So in your hypothetical example, if an accused rapist or murderer exercises their constitutional right to not testify, this means that they are guilty?

Simply amazing.

Let's take a look at this event from a homicide point of view. Over 3,000 people were murdered on 9/11. According to the US government and US intelligence agencies, Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of these people. Yet, 7 years after the fact, it is not actively involved in bringing him to justice. How would you feel and what would you do if one of your family members was murdered, the police knew who it was, but were not actively pursuing that person?

Furthermore, any and all evidence was cleared away from the scene before it had been investigated by any forensic team. 3,000 people die and no forensic investigation is needed? Does that not strike you as odd? Again, if this was a family member who had been murdered, and you found out the police conducted no forensic investigation of the murder scene, would you not file a complaint against them for a breach of protocol?

And, as jackinthebox states, Bush has declared he's not interested in where Osama Bin Laden is. The President does not care about finding the murderer of over 3,000 of his own citizens? Does that sound like a Commander in Chief to you? Why would he not care about it?